User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you support eugenics?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 21.05%
  • No

    30 78.95%
First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 200

  1. #171
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    It is time to get back on topic. People who can't relate their posts to eugenics in some way, could you do everyone else the honour of starting a new thread or shutting up.
    Jimmies status: rustled

  2. #172
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    All that you, ygolo and others have been saying rests on a weak premise: that an unfavourable change in structure & hence function now might become useful in the future. However, you cannot say when, or even if this will be the case, which greatly weakens your argument.
    Are you serious? That is the exact same error most ignorant people make against evolution in general, if you can't understand the game of probability behind evolution then you can't understand the basic tenants of eugenics in the first place. We might as well be arguing different agricultural approaches with a kid who's conception of 'the real world' is that food is made in the supermarket.

    Build a basic grasp of your own ideology. Make the argument for eugenics, don't be the argument for eugenics

  3. #173
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Are you serious? That is the exact same error most ignorant people make against evolution in general, if you can't understand the game of probability behind evolution then you can't understand the basic tenants of eugenics in the first place. We might as well be arguing different agricultural approaches with a kid who's conception of 'the real world' is that food is made in the supermarket.
    You keep evading the fact that the probability being too low to be useful means that we practically cannot act on that chance. Directed eugenics is about doing the work for nature so that we can get the outcome we want in a short period of time (by evolutionary standards).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Build a basic grasp of your own ideology. Make the argument for eugenics, don't be the argument for eugenics
    I understand my own ideology a lot better than you ever will, by the quality of your posts.

  4. #174
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    I understand my own ideology
    Evidently not - you are arguing in favor of controlled evolution without understanding the basic concepts of evolution.

  5. #175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    What you are suggesting is that a change in protein structure is often not deleterious and may in fact be beneficial. This might get past others, but it will not get past me and in is the most laughable thing posted on the thread yet. I don't want to divert the discussion though, so read on.

    All that you, ygolo and others have been saying rests on a weak premise: that an unfavourable change in structure & hence function now might become useful in the future. However, you cannot say when, or even if this will be the case, which greatly weakens your argument. Back in the real world, millions of people live shitty lives due to inherited disorders - the probability is that changes in the genetic code will have no or a negative effect, and as evolution works over generations, sudden environmental stresses will not favour a useful mutation that has just appeared in the population. I have explained why this is so earlier.

    To take your latest example, for the one advantage listed, think of all the disadvantages. Dysfunctional neurological connections early in a person's life could lead to a whole range of physical and mental issues.
    The things I have been saying are fairly well established. If you are going to say these things are not part of the "real world" and want to continue with the fantasy that you can eliminate 700 million people from the population aimed specifically at removing traits without adverse effects, I am not sure what to do with you. My image of you is someone who has never held a real job, and sits at home posting fantasies on the internet and disputing scientific fact as not having to do with reality. I could be wrong.

    Here is a quote from wikipedia to emphasize that not only primary sources but secondary sources say the same things that so many in this thread have been saying (Heterozygote advantage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , emphasis is mine):
    A heterozygote advantage (heterozygous advantage) describes the case in which the heterozygote genotype has a higher relative fitness than either the homozygote dominant or homozygote recessive genotype. The specific case of heterozygote advantage due to a single locus is known as overdominance.[1][2] In more general terms, overdominance is a condition in genetics where the phenotype of the heterozygote lies outside of the phenotypical range of both homozygote parents, and heterozygous individuals have a higher fitness than homozygous individuals.

    Polymorphism can be maintained by selection favoring the heterozygote, and this mechanism is used to explain the occurrence of some kinds of genetic variability. A common example is the case where the heterozygote conveys both advantages and disadvantages, while both homozygotes convey a disadvantage. A well-established case of heterozygote advantage is that of the gene involved in sickle cell anaemia.

    Often, the advantages and disadvantages conveyed are rather complicated, because more than one gene may influence a given trait or morph. Major genes almost always have multiple effects (pleiotropism), which can simultaneously convey separate advantageous traits and disadvantageous traits upon the same organism. In this instance, the state of the organism's environment will provide selection, with a net effect either favoring or working in opposition to the gene, until an environmentally determined equilibrium is reached.

    Heterozygote advantage is a major underlying mechanism for heterosis, or "hybrid vigor", which is the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. Previous research, comparing measures of dominance, overdominance and epistasis (mostly in plants), found that the majority of cases of heterozygote advantage were due to complementation (or dominance), the masking of deleterious recessive alleles by wild-type alleles, as discussed in the articles Heterosis and Complementation (genetics), but there were also findings of overdominance, especially in rice.[2] More recent research, however, has established that there is also an epigenetic contribution to heterozygote advantage, primarily as determined in plants,[3][4] though also reported in mice.[5]
    Quote Originally Posted by collierm48 View Post
    I agree with this guy.

    To @ygolo and the other guy, I see the point that you two are trying to make, but you're guys are overthinking it in my opinion.


    The choice is a simple one to make.
    I pretty much agree with @DiscoBiscuit in this respect too. I share his optimism for the technology, and I think people like @Jarlaxle and others might as well.

    It turned out we are in agreement with almost everything in terms of the use of genetic manipulation except perhaps what we mean by eugenics.

    I initially thought you were on board with @SilentMusings idea of eliminating 10% of the population based on traits he found undesirable. If this is not what you had in mind, but instead things like gene therapy, then we are in agreement.

    I was lumping you two together, and perhaps that was a mistake.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  6. #176
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    I understand my own ideology a lot better than you ever will, by the quality of your posts.
    Understanding ideology is one thing. Understanding reality is something else.


    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  7. #177
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Evidently not - you are arguing in favor of controlled evolution without understanding the basic concepts of evolution.

  8. #178
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I pretty much agree with @DiscoBiscuit in this respect too. I share his optimism for the technology, and I think people like @Jarlaxle and others might as well.
    Yes - my first post in this thread outright said that:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post

    That is what they should be informed of. If they have Googled genetically related problems and have not yet heard of PDG clinics, then Google Adsense has failed us miserably.

    As for eugenics, the benefit of a society that knows how to squeeze the potential from people despite their problems far outweighs the benefit of a society that doesn't have those people to began with. But if a family is going to have X number of kids, then why not enable them to have the healthiest kids they can have? yes, PDG can have a cost in terms of genetic diversity, but I would rather put my money on the potential of genetic engineering then make people suffer on the slim chance that the genes for diabetes or breast cancer will mutate to that one genetic trait that will help us survive the next plague.

  9. #179
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    The things I have been saying are fairly well established. If you are going to say these things are not part of the "real world" and want to continue with the fantasy that you can eliminate 700 million people from the population aimed specifically at removing traits without adverse effects, I am not sure what to do with you. My image of you is someone who has never held a real job, and sits at home posting fantasies on the internet and disputing scientific fact as not having to do with reality. I could be wrong.

    Here is a quote from wikipedia to emphasize that not only primary sources but secondary sources say the same things that so many in this thread have been saying (Heterozygote advantage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , emphasis is mine):
    Hybrid vigour occurs when you breed two highly homogyzogus parents for a number of different traits together to get the best of both worlds. However, the random mating of two people who will be homogyzous for one trait, hetereozygous for others, and have a whole lot of traits with more complex inheritance patterns, just because they are appreciably "different", will not increase health. You have no idea whatsoever what you are doing in this case. It would be like me knocking up your sister after a one night stand compared to controlled pedigree dog breeding.

    If you can explain how the benefits of being heterozygous for any of the disorders I listed outweigh the consequences then you will have won this debate. But until then, you have not.

    As I have consistently pointed out, the probability of there being an advantage to being heterozygous for the cystic fibrosis gene, for example, does not outweigh the disadvantages. Not by a country mile. The reason these disorders persist in the population is not because they convey some advantage but because the heterozygous individual often does not have such severe symptoms if any and may be able to reproduce. This is not an argument against evolution, only that any useful mutation would take a while to spread in any given population unless the environment drastically changed. Bargining on that chance occuring during our lifetimes is not rational because it is very low indeed. That is why I posted the meteorite analogy.

    Why you people can't understand what I'm trying to tell you is utterly beyond me...

    That you are optimisitic about genetic technology is highly hypocritical considering what you have stated earlier. As I have pointed out, enhancement will also lead to a loss of genetic diversity, and along with it a whole set of societal problems created by the population being unnaturally healthy. Be consistent.

  10. #180
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Anyway, enough is enough. I have spent enough time on this thread, and I mean it this time.

Similar Threads

  1. [ESTJ] What do you think of ESTJs?
    By JediM05 in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 177
    Last Post: 11-15-2013, 11:18 PM
  2. [NT] NT rationals, a question! What do you think?
    By Viva_Hate in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-06-2008, 07:09 PM
  3. What do you think about?
    By proteanmix in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-06-2008, 01:48 AM
  4. Time to re-evaluate myself (again?) - what do you think I am/could be?
    By TenebrousReflection in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 07:22 AM
  5. So...what do you think?
    By Oberon in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 12:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO